| Level | Grade | N |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | 6 | 30 |
| Primary | 7 | 29 |
| Primary | 8 | 26 |
| Secondary | 1 | 29 |
| Secondary | 2 | 20 |
| Secondary | 3 | 22 |
On this dashboard, we visually present the all the findings of
our study. We hope that providing the information in this way, we can
better inform researchers and ethical review boards to make an informed
decision in the study procedures. The main question of this study was
how appropriate parents of children in primary- and secondary school
perceive active- and passive informed consent for participation of their
child in scientific research in the school context. Specifically, this
study investigated the difference in perceived appropriateness between
active- and passive parental informed consent for a variety of research
types conducted in the school context.
To test the main hypothesis, whether passive parental consent is not perceived as less appropriate than active parental consent, we used a reversed inferior test. We defined a one-sided t-test with the alternative hypothesis that active parental consent is perceived as more appropriate than passive parental consent. However, to confirm our hypothesis we were interested in the amount of evidence for the null hypothesis, meaning we would accept our hypothesis when the Bayes factor for the alternative hypothesis is smaller than 3 (BF10 < .33; BF01 > 3).
Participants were exposed to 10 video vignettes, each explaining one of the research types. Participants indicated how appropriate both active and passive parental informed consent is for each vignette. Participants could rate the appropriateness on a 7-point slider scale, ranging from not appropriate at all (1) to very appropriate (7). The ratings of active and passive consent were asked on two separate pages, and each time the illustration of the vignette was presented alongside the research method, see the Figure 1. Table 2 and figure 3 present the mean ratings of passive and active consent, for the ten research types. In addition, the table reports the Bayes factors for the alternative hypotheses and the conclusions that we draw.
| Research type | Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | Bayes factor | Conclusion | Cohens D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observational | 5.06 | [4.77, 5.36] | 4.74 | [4.45, 5.02] | 0.04 | Pas = Act | 0.11 |
| Co-creation | 4.69 | [4.41, 4.96] | 5.29 | [5.05, 5.53] | 0.40 | Pas = Act | 0.11 |
| Survey | 4.13 | [3.82, 4.45] | 5.51 | [5.26, 5.76] | 10.44 | Pas < Act | 0.23 |
| Longitudinal Survey | 3.58 | [3.27, 3.89] | 5.42 | [5.17, 5.68] | 27.40 | Pas < Act | 0.26 |
| Focus group | 4.84 | [4.55, 5.13] | 5.13 | [4.88, 5.39] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.34 |
| Interview | 4.48 | [4.18, 4.78] | 5.16 | [4.91, 5.41] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.49 |
| Objective Measures | 3.48 | [3.17, 3.79] | 5.50 | [5.25, 5.75] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.66 |
| Diary | 4.50 | [4.20, 4.80] | 5.42 | [5.18, 5.66] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.71 |
| Data Donation | 3.54 | [3.24, 3.85] | 5.46 | [5.21, 5.70] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.73 |
| Clinical | 2.72 | [2.41, 3.04] | 5.51 | [5.20, 5.81] | >100 | Pas < Act | 0.92 |
Because we were interested in potential differences between
primary school and secondary school children, we stratified our analyses
by the school level. A Bayesian mixed-effects model indicated strong
evidence that there is no difference in scores in general between
primary and secondary school (BF10 = .08 ± 1.02%). This means that
overall (irrespective of the consent procedure or research type),
parents rated the acceptability similarly. However, we found anecdotal
evidence (BF10 = 2.88 ± 0.93%) that the differences between active and
passive consent were bigger in primary school (active = 5.54, passive =
3.91, difference = 1.54) than secondary school (active = 5.15, passive =
4.34, difference = 0.81).
Splitting the vignettes into primary and secondary schools provided the most interesting insights. Specifically, the same Bayesian paired samples t-tests from the preregistered analyses were run for the primary and secondary schools separately. For the primary school children, no different conclusions were drawn. For children in secondary school (n = 71), we found anecdotal to moderate evidence that parents do not think that active consent is more appropriate for Focus groups (BF01 = 2.63 ± 0.00%), Survey (BF01 = 2.08 ± 0.00%), and Longitudinal Survey (BF01 = 3.01 ± 0.00%) studies. This differences is also observable when comparing Figure 3 to figure 4.
Based on these results we can tentatively state that for secondary schools, passive parental consent is an appropriate procedure for Observational, Co-creation, Survey, Longitudinal survey, and Focus group studies.
Were were interested whether parents would regard certain topics
of interested to our projects as more or less appropriate for passive
consent. Therefore we asked the parents how appropriate passive consent
is for surveys when we ask questions pertaining to their
happiness and mental well-being, about their
friends, about the situation at home, and
personally identifiable information such as address or date of
birth. In Table 3 and Figure 5, we have also added the general
appropriateness of passive consent from the vignettes. The general label
refers to the appropriateness of passive consent for surveys form the
vignettes. As indicated in the table and the figure, the scores for
happiness and friends were similar to the general
sentiment of using passive consent in survey studies. However, parents
were a bit more reserved about questions on the domestic
situation and especially about personally identifiable
information.
| Mean | SD | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Happiness | 4.72 | 1.71 | 0.14 | [4.46, 4.99] |
| Friend | 4.65 | 1.68 | 0.13 | [4.39, 4.92] |
| Domestic | 4.17 | 2.01 | 0.16 | [3.85, 4.48] |
| Personal | 3.60 | 2.12 | 0.17 | [3.26, 3.93] |
| General | 4.69 | 1.76 | 0.14 | [4.41, 4.96] |
In our lab, we pride ourselves for using a blended science
approach. In our projects, we cooperate with youth to design our
studies. Specifically, together with the children we co-create media
content such as Instagram posts or TikTok videos. Therefore, we asked
the parents how appropriate passive consent is for co-creation when
participants will be making photo’s or video’s.
With a mean score
of 3.57 this was not perceived as appropriate by the parents, as it is
below the mid-point of the scale and considerable lower than the
appropriateness of passive consent for co-creation in general (4.69).
Therefore, we advise researchers to use active parental consent
procedures when co-creating media messages. This is also in line with
the previous reservation about personally identifiable
information. Most media content could contain some form of
information that is identifiable, such as names, places or faces.
The parents in the study were shown a video about a specific
format for obtaining parental consent for multiple studies within one
school year. Specifically, parents are asked to provide active parental
consent at the start of the school year for a series of studies on a
determined topic. For each study within the school year, parents are
informed and have the opportunity to opt-out. We have termed this
cluster consent. The parents in this study were asked to
respond to the idea of the cluster consent in general. Again they used
the faces scale and could select the face that best matched their
beliefs. The range was between 1 and 7 as shown in Figure 1.
Compared of the average scores of the 10 vignettes, the cluster consent
scored a bit higher. But, be aware, these two scores are not entirely
comparable. The passive and active scores are the averages of the
vignette. The cluster score was just one single item measuring
appropriateness in general.
| Mean | SD | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active | 5.31 | 1.66 | 0.13 | [5.05, 5.57] |
| Passive | 4.10 | 2.04 | 0.16 | [3.78, 4.42] |
| Cluster | 5.45 | 1.79 | 0.14 | [5.17, 5.73] |
In the next question, participants gave a bit more information
about the cluster consent for the different research methods. Contrary
to the vignettes, they did not rate the appropriateness on a scale from
1 to 7, but they could indicate per research type if they thought the
cluster consent would be appropriate (yes vs no). Here are the percents
of “yes” per research method. As can be seen in Figure 6, the majority
of the parents was open to the concept of cluster consent for
Survey, Observation, Longitudinal survey,
Co-creation, Interviews and Diary studies.
Much to our surprise, using cluster consent procedures for Focus
group studies was only accepted by the minority of the parents.
Participants were asked whether they have been approached
previously to provide consent for their child in academic research.
Follow-up questions asked about research why people did not respond
previously.
As can be seen in Table 5, the majority of the parents in our sample was never approached before to provide consent for their child to participate in scientific research.
| Previously approached | Active | Passive | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 5.28 | 4.03 | 1.25 |
| Yes | 5.50 | 4.22 | 1.28 |
Of the 37 participants that were approached previously, almost
everybody did respond! Only two people answered that they did not
respond to a previous invite, see Table 7. In theses cases, participants
were provided a text box in which they could explain why they did not
respond when approached.
The first participants indicated that (s)he had forgotten to respond. The second participants said (s)he did not respond because a passive consent procedure was used. Based on only these two participants we can not learn a lot. But at least, out of those 37 parents, there were no critical opponents of the consent procedure that they study used.
| Previously approached | Number of Participants | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 37 | 0.24 |
| No | 106 | 0.68 |
| Not sure | 13 | 0.08 |
Given that so few of our participants were approached before, we
wondered if this had an effect on the ratings for active and passive
consent. We deemed it plausible that the previous invitation might
increased the trust in scientific research, or might have activated more
critical thinking.
The ratings of both active and passive consent
were slightly higher for those who have been approached previously, see
Table 6. However, it is very unlikely that that there is a difference in
ratings between parents who have been approached before and parents who
haven’t (BF = 0.21). Also, we find no differences specifically for
active (BF = 0.28) and passive (BF = 0.21) consent, and the differences
between active and passive consent were comparable between both groups
(BF = 0.15). Therefore, we can not conclude that having previously been
invited to provide for consent your child does not affect the rating for
appropriateness for either active of passive parental consent
procedures.
| Reponded | Number of Participants | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 35 | 94.59 |
| No | 2 | 5.41 |
Participants were asked via which channels they like to opt-in
or opt-out of the study. Participants could select multiple channels. In
the figure, we have plotted the percentage of participants that selected
the channel. we have annotated the exact number of participants next the
the end of the bar. Because participants could select multiple channels,
the total of the percentages does not add up to 100%.
As can be
seen in Figure 7, Email and website were the most
selected channels. When participants selected other, they could
give a suggestion. One of these suggestions was via an app, the
other text field was left blank.
Moreover, participants were
asked how important it is that communication about the study is done in
the same way the school normally communicates with the parents. The
participants could respond with not at all (1) to very
important (7). On average, the score was 5.82 (SD = 1.28), meaning
that most of them agreed that it is important to use the schools’
existing channels of communication, see Figure 8.
In short, we
advise to use the schools’ existing channels, preferentially email or
website, for the consent procedure.
Participants were asked what they think would be a fair reward
for participation in scientific studies. Participants could select
select multiple rewards. In the figure, we have plotted the percentage
of participants that selected the channel. we have annotated the exact
number of participants next the the end of the bar. Because participants
could select multiple rewards, the total of the percentages does not add
up to 100%.
As can be seen in Figure 10, a gift for the whole class
and a gift for the individual child were the most selected rewards.
Around one in three participants indicated that it was also not
necessary to reward the participants, as it is important to participate
in scientific studies. When participants selected other, they
could give a suggestion.
One of these suggestions was to donate money to charity chosen by the children. Another suggestion was to handout discount coupons for excursion. The last interesting suggestion was to let the children decide what they want as a reward.
| Payment | N | Mean | Median | Mode | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vouchers | 20 | 8.12 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 50 |
| Wire money to child | 15 | 6.17 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 15 |
| Wire money to parent | 2 | 10.00 | 10 | NA | 5 | 15 |
| Pay in cash | 2 | 5.50 | 6 | NA | 1 | 10 |
In addition, participants who selected some form of momentary
reward were asked to add what they thought would be a fair amount of
euro’s per hour. As can be seen, the amount vary heavily, between 1€ and
50€ (!) per hour. But looking at the mean (7,33€),median and the mode
(both 5€), the results suggests that 5€ per hour is reasonable for the
parents.
Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) is an internationally oriented university with a strong social orientation in its education and research, as expressed in our mission ‘Creating positive societal impact’. EUR is home to 3.700 academics and professionals and almost 33.000 students from more than 140 countries. Everything we do, we do under the credo The Erasmian Way – Making Minds Matter. We’re global citizens, connecting, entrepreneurial, open-minded, and socially involved. These Erasmian Values function as our internal compass and create EUR’s distinctive and recognizable profile. From these values, with a broad perspective and with an eye for diversity, different backgrounds and opinions, our employees work closely together to solve societal challenges from the dynamic and cosmopolitan city of Rotterdam. Thanks to the high quality and positive societal impact of our research and education, EUR can compete with the top European universities. www.eur.nl.
Young people grow up in a world where computers, tablets and smartphones are omnipresent. These digital media technologies offer important opportunities in the fields of entertainment, education, communication and cultural development. This being said, there are also risks involved that can affect their well-being and safety. Our research highlights the ways in which young people can take full advantage of the opportunities that digital media provides. Simultaneously, we emphasize how youth can cope with the potential risks of digital media use. Education to promote media literacy is indispensable for this.
MediaMovez helps in the development of effective media literacy education programs. Through research, we can contribute by developing education programs that help children interact with digital media in a more autonomous, safe and responsible way.
MediaMovez uses a media empowerment approach. This approach aims to strengthen the skills that young people need to use digital media independently and in a media-smart way.
SocialMovez
Online social networks such as Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat offer unprecedented technological possibilities to promote a healthy lifestyle among young people. For example, through influencers in their online network. With our research, we want to make online health campaigns more effective while safeguarding young people’s digital privacy.
SocialMovez investigates how health campaigns for young people can be spread more effectively through peer influencers in online social networks. We focus on promoting healthy behaviors such as physical activity or healthy eating habits. In our research we aim to identify peer influencers in young people’s online social networks and motivate them to engage in the health campaign.
We use innovative technologies in the field of data analysis to optimize online (health) campaigns without compromising the privacy of young people. We co-create our campaign messages and strategies with young people, parents, and health professionals.